Hello forumAnother thread has raised a difficult question for me and I seek clarification.

Dreadful allegations of bigotry have been made against a news commentator and a link posted to the offending video.The supposedly offensive words were quoted and the commentator was not only accused of being a racist but a fucking racist. So there is no doubt as to the opinion of the poster with regards to the intentions of the commentator.

I slipped over to the link and found that the quotes had been truncated but the last remark which was quoted was highly prescient - "and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold". That is not the comment of a racist - overt or subconscious!

hmmmm found and saw the video. I think this man goes beyond a talking head. He doesn't even know what he's saying. Most news "reporters" in TV are like this I'm afraid. They talk just to talk and they talk idiotic rubbish anyway (of the "The building you see on the back is the building in which the heads of the states are who are currently in the building you see on the back" kind).

I am currently not sure. There's always the chance that this was a slip of the tongue revealing his true thoughts (in another words his bigotry).
However, I think it's more probable that he was in the "they are so" mode, couldn't find anything else than "so poor" to say so he used the "so black" comment. I mean it doesn't make any sense does it? What is the meaning of "so black"? If he had said "and they are black" that would have been a racist remark without a doubt. This one is, for me, a case of complete and utter idiocy

However, I think it's more probable that he was in the "they are so" mode, couldn't find anything else than "so poor" to say so he used the "so black" comment. I mean it doesn't make any sense does it? What is the meaning of "so black"? If he had said "and they are black" that would have been a racist remark without a doubt. This one is, for me, a case of complete and utter idiocy

Click to expand...

I agree with this totally. To me, he was trying to make some type of illiteration, or repeated thought, in order to make his reporting sound more profound. To "sell the story" as it were. I doubt very highly he is a racist. I certainly doubt he is a f*cking racist.

The reporters who were racist seemed to me to be the ones who were showing pictures of white people taking what they needed "to survive," then reporting on black people doing the same thing, and calling it "looting."

The reporters who were racist seemed to me to be the ones who were showing pictures of white people taking what they needed "to survive," then reporting on black people doing the same thing, and calling it "looting."

Second, I thought that a Katrina evacuee had more authority to pass judgment on Wolfy than most of us so I simply quoted him. It was Shane who called Wolfy a damned racist. If I have to choose between the opinion of a couple of white guys who live in other countries and the opinion of a Katrina refugee who happens to be black and who finds Wolfy's comment offensive well... it's a no brainer...

I must have missed this one. I know the screen capture is hard to see, but scenes are being played. On the left, a body is being recovered. On the right, a man is walking through flood waters. As you can read on the closed captioning, Wolf is saying, "All of them that we se, are soo poor, and they are so black, and..." I know what 'so poor' means. What the hell does, 'so black' mean? Damned racist, that what I think.

Let's set the record straight. I didn't pass judgment on Wolfy. I simply asked a question and asked for people's opinions.

Second, I thought that a Katrina evacuee had more authority to pass judgment on Wolfy than most of us so I simply quoted him. It was Shane who called Wolfy a damned racist. If I have to choose between the opinion of a couple of white guys who live in other countries and the opinion of a Katrina refugee who happens to be black and who finds Wolfy's comment offensive well... it's a no brainer...

I just hope that Wolfy learned his lesson. As I stated in another thread, we are all racists. The only difference is that some of us are in denial and some of us are in recovery.

Click to expand...

You posted a provocative thread with a truncated quote asking an ugly question in which you swore making an allegation of the most base vile human trait. I am not sure that I have ever read a more biased question and now my opinions are to be dismissed and the emotional response of some poor bugger with a microphone stuck up his nose within minutes of calamity are to be preferred.
I did not refer to you in this thread and said not one thing about you in this thread yet you feel the need to use my thread to bolster your position on a different thread with equivocation and self misquoting. I prefer the opinion of a pet rock to the opinions of a person with such a basis.

Everness.
Did you just call me a racist?
I wish a clear and unadulterated response?
Did you call me a racist?

What is the meaning of "so black"? If he had said "and they are black" that would have been a racist remark without a doubt. This one is, for me, a case of complete and utter idiocy

Click to expand...

I think "so black" was a bad choice of words but I don't understand how this is racist! The whole point is that the federal government did NOTHING in the first week to help people in NO exactly because they are poor and exactly because they are black. He just said it "like it is". Had they been white and well-off, they probably wouldn't be in this mess.

I think "so black" was a bad choice of words but I don't understand how this is racist! The whole point is that the federal government did NOTHING in the first week to help people in NO exactly because they are poor and exactly because they are black. He just said it "like it is". Had they been white and well-off, they probably wouldn't be in this mess.

Click to expand...

What is it of the "so black" that you don't see as racist? If he wanted to say that the poorest and blackest you are in America, the more f*cked up you are, he should have worked a bit more on the wording of his ideas. By the way, other people have used the words poor and black as synonyms.

Not being a racist isn't enough; you shouldn't appear to be one either, especially if you're a journalist. It's interesting that no one ever asked Wolfy if he regreted what he said or, most importantly, what the hell was he trying to say. Again, as a recovering racist myself, I'm not into passing judgment on fellow racists in denial or in recovery.

Ok, ireney, I see were he's coming from. Thank you. The only thing I can say is that people shouldn't take my classification of human beings too personally. After all, nothing is more than 80% true! I'm not trying to label anyone racist. I'm just trying to help us understand that there's a racist gnome within all of us that we need to monitor and keep under control. There's a parallel between alcoholism and racism. First, both are diseases. Racism is a disease of the soul. Second, racism, like alcoholism, is treatable and controllable, but not curable.

I think he's a bigot, in some way, somehow, evidently or privately, sometimes...
Was his comment unfortunate? Sure, it was even offensive, if you wish to be offended.
But is he a "racialistic" and "prejudicial" bigot? That, I don't think can be said for certain with a single quote without context.
Now, I haven't taken the time to review the whole transcript of the whole segment in which he was commenting, so I don't know if the rest of his comments were equally colored... Erm... Strike that... were equally improperly articulated.
Maybe, he should have not made a comment as to what ethnic background were all those victims at all. It was there for all of us to see...

I would ask you for some proof that I fall into your all embracing classification there please, or a retraction.

and as for this comment…
[quote[The only difference is that some of us are in denial and some of us are in recovery.[/quote]
There is no way to deny that statement without 'proving' that one is in denial. It is a tactic which can be used in any pathetic argument alleging something nasty about other people.

But, I would be interested in seeing how you back it up — please provide me with a rough guide to how one makes such a judgement about people you have never met.

Everness might be on to something...
I have decided that I am a racist:
I can't stand chihuahua dogs, and the little beta fish make me positively nauseous.
On the other hand, I was spared the ignominy of descending into the absurdity of human racism, because there's only one human race! So I can't be intolerant of people based on race, unless I am doubly stupid.

But as Mr. Long-shorts-squared wrote very precisely, it's a question of bigotry. Is that bloke a bigot?

Everness might be on to something...
I have decided that I am a racist:
I can't stand chihuahua dogs, and the little beta fish make me positively nauseous.
On the other hand, I was spared the ignominy of descending into the absurdity of human racism, because there's only one human race! So I can't be intolerant of people based on race, unless I am doubly stupid.

But as Mr. Long-shorts-squared wrote very precisely, it's a question of bigotry. Is that bloke a bigot?

Click to expand...

Thanks mate. It's a pleasure to meet a like mind and I must agree on those little mutts with the pop eyes. They look like thay want to steal my wallet.

The whole point is that the federal government did NOTHING in the first week to help people in NO exactly because they are poor and exactly because they are black.

Click to expand...

I agree that the federal government was not up to the task, but local government was even worse. And in a democracy, I think you should rely mostly on local government. Centralization, as you have in France and England, is undemocratic.

George Bush is a supporter of massive immigration. It is clear that he does not want the US to remain a European country. The same is true of the "news" media. So I think it makes no sense to say the US government has some kind of secret agenda against black people. In the United States (and Western Europe) the fact is that racial discrimination by the administration always favors non-Europeans. At the same time, false accusations are systematically made against the Europeans. I think it isn't right.

Maybe, he should have not made a comment as to what ethnic background were all those victims at all. It was there for all of us to see...

Click to expand...

I don't know who made a comment. I haven't read everything in this thread. But about Katrina's victims, here is an article I read 6 months ago :

Most media got Katrina wrong
By John Leo
Monday, January 9, 2006

Did New Orleans blacks die at a higher rate than whites in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? On the evidence so far, the answer is no. Of the 1,100 bodies recovered in Louisiana after Katrina, 836 were found in New Orleans, and the state has released data on 568 of those that were judged to be storm-related. As of last week, blacks, which were 67.2 percent of the pre-storm population of New Orleans, account for 50.9 percent of the city victims so far identified by race. It was New Orleans Caucasians who died way out of proportion to their numbers-28 percent of the population, 45.6 percent of the city’s known Katrina deaths by race.

Did New Orleans blacks die at a higher rate than whites in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? On the evidence so far, the answer is no. Of the 1,100 bodies recovered in Louisiana after Katrina, 836 were found in New Orleans, and the state has released data on 568 of those that were judged to be storm-related. As of last week, blacks, which were 67.2 percent of the pre-storm population of New Orleans, account for 50.9 percent of the city victims so far identified by race. It was New Orleans Caucasians who died way out of proportion to their numbers-28 percent of the population, 45.6 percent of the city’s known Katrina deaths by race.

Unless we have some way to determine if the 568 are a statistically representative sample of either the 836 or of the 1100--the wording is ambiguous on that point--these numbers may suggest what the author inferred. They may also suggest that bodies of Black people were more decomposed, and not identifiable by race. It's speculative.

Not everybody seems to agree on the blame that's to be put on the journalist.
The comment underneath the video says :

During a CNN broadcast about hurricane Katrina, with a slip of the tongue, Wolf Blitzer juxtaposes being black with being poor.

Click to expand...

So what? I don't see what's racist there. Unless ones considers that being poor is a flaw.

On the other hand, on the blog, you can read

I know what 'so poor' means. What the hell does, 'so black' mean?

Click to expand...

That's something different.

I agree with GenJen that he sort of got lost in his own sentence.
I also agree with .,,

"and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold". That is not the comment of a racist - overt or subconscious!

Click to expand...

Well maybe, as an outside chance, the fact of saying "sooo black" could be a Freudian slip that would reveal some sort of subconscious concealed racism. But I think it's far more important to deal with overt racism and leave the others the benefit of doubt. This kind of political correctness, obsessively trying to smoke out racism everywhere, might very well have an opposite effect and actually breed racism in the end.

Lastly, I agree with Everness that, as humans, we have a "natural" tendency to distrust all that is different, all that doesn't belong to our own group. But, also as humans, we have the power to fight that tendency. Who knows? I might have become a racist myself, had I not been educated otherwise, had I not met the right people at the right moment.

Lastly, I agree with Everness that, as humans, we have a "natural" tendency to distrust all that is different, all that doesn't belong to our own group. But, also as humans, we have the power to fight that tendency. Who knows? I might have become a racist myself, had I not been educated otherwise, had I not met the right people at the right moment.

Click to expand...

I would agree with this, generally speaking, but I still cannot opine about that Mr. Wolf yet. I simply cannot find this video! WHERE IS IT?

I opened all links you put here, but no video I found, whatsoever.
It also seems to me as if this subject was already discussed in some other thread, and that you all have already participated in it, so you know what is it about, but I don't, since I came too late to the party.

They talk just to talk and they talk idiotic rubbish anyway (of the "The building you see on the back is the building in which the heads of the states are who are currently in the building you see on the back" kind).

Click to expand...

I think that he really did not know exactly what to say, and maybe he wanted to say they are all black and they are so poor... Instead, from his mouth came out the "so poor and so black" - lapsus lingue. I really do not see any racism in those words, since this would be very close to the truth. Maybe the "political kerrektness" (I adore this Cuchu's expression, jeej) in EEUU is making people to see the racism where there is none of it. Judging by this video, I would say he could have prepared better, could have behaved more professionally, but that he is a racist, of course not. I wouldn't dare to claim this in general for Mr. Wolf, since I do not know anything about his work, but in this perticular video, I do not see him as a racist.

On the other hand, I did notice this what Jen Gen says:

..... the ones who were showing pictures of white people taking what they needed "to survive," then reporting on black people doing the same thing, and calling it "looting."

Click to expand...

I was really annoyed by this, couldn't stand it, really. It seemed to me so unblieveble what was going on in New Orleans, and that actually it was happening in one POWERFUL and RICH country, and not in a third-world country. And thinking that only with one-days military budget in Iraq, this desaster in New Orleans could have been avoided....

Yo do not avoid hurricane, but it could have been avoided a complete innundation that New Orleans suffered, because of the dikes that protect the city broke. There wouldn't have been so many people left without anything.

Yo do not avoid hurricane, but it could have been avoided a complete innundation that New Orleans suffered, because of the dikes that protect the city broke. There wouldn't have been so many people left without anything.

Click to expand...

...which is the responsibility of the state and local governments. Evacuation plans (especially with a city that is so vulnerable to flooding) are also the responsibility of the local governments.

...which is the responsibility of the state and local governments. Evacuation plans (especially with a city that is so vulnerable to flooding) are also the responsibility of the local governments.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't know about the distribution of the money and budgeting in the USA, and I assume that it is a more complicated problem to resolve than it appears at the first sight. But New Orleans IS the part of The USA, isn't it? So I find horrible the fact that the desaster could have been avoided with the money that the US spends for only one day of troops maintenance in Iraq. I would not like to enter into domestic affairs of the USA, which BTW is not the topic of this thread.

I would ask you for some proof that I fall into your all embracing classification there please, or a retraction.

Click to expand...

Tony, if natural born non-racist individuals existed, you'd be one. And I'm not kidding. Happy? I'd also be happy to share my theory on why I consider that all human beings are racists. Some choose to remain racists throughout their lives (consciously or unconsciously) and others choose to move away from racism and adopt a non-racist attitude. Can I make this type of statements about people I haven't met? If you allow me to extrapolate this discussion to another topic, I would argue that I don't need to meet anyone personally to state that he/she is somewhat neurotic (the old classification that DSM-IV unfortunately took away) or comes from or is currently living in a somewhat dysfunctional family. I yet have to meet an individual or a family that isn't somewhat neurotic or dysfunctional respectively. Ah, and if we look at human beings from a theological perspective, I would also argue that I don't need to meet anyone to state that he/she is a sinner. In Paul's words, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" Romans 6.24. Did I tell you that Calvin has made an impression on me?

I wouldn't know about the distribution of the money and budgeting in the USA, and I assume that it is a more complicated problem to resolve than it appears at the first sight. But New Orleans IS the part of The USA, isn't it? So I find horrible the fact that the desaster could have been avoided with the money that the US spends for only one day of troops maintenance in Iraq. I would not like to enter into domestic affairs of the USA, which BTW is not the topic of this thread.

Click to expand...

yes, but money isn't the issue -- planning is. And that is a louisianna and New orleans affair.

Whoa there. What do you mean by "if". You are making an unfounded supposition to prove your point.
I see children of many races playing together without concern. Racism is not "natural born" — it is learnt.

I will ask again for "proof" - you gave me personal bias. Which is strongly backed by your introduction of the word "sinner".

I see children of many races playing together without concern. Racism is not "natural born" — it is learnt.

Click to expand...

This is so true. Children born like tabula rasa as far as moral is concerned. We, adults have the whole resposibility for what will be written in that board during the life of a new-born. We, adults, put in chldren our own racist or filantropic ideas, and they soak them as sponges, since we are adults, we know the best... Maybe we should look better into their unstained souls and try to learn something from them...

I'm hoping that the speaker meant the following definition of black:
From thefreedictionary.com:

Cheerless and depressing; gloomy: black thoughts.

Click to expand...

There are many people that feel that the poor black people living in New Orleans had been abandoned by local, state, and federal governments a long time ago...

I have much more of a problem with Barbara Bush, who made some bizarre comment about people that had been evacuated to the stadiums to the effect of (found here):

<B>

Barbara Bush on Hurricane Katrina Refugees

It is, without doubt, the quote of the hour — a remark attributed to ex-first lady and mother-of-the-president Barbara Bush during a visit to the Hurricane Katrina refugee shelter in the Houston Astrodome:

What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them. ​

She is not the only person who thinks that poor people should stay poor and suffer forever as if the poverty is their own guilt. But she is a VERY public person and at least she shouldn't say everything she thinks...

This is so true. Children born like tabula rasa as far as moral is concerned. We, adults have the whole resposibility for what will be written in that board during the life of a new-born. We, adults, put in chldren our own racist or filantropic ideas, and they soak them as sponges, since we are adults, we know the best... Maybe we should look better into their unstained souls and try to learn something from them...

Click to expand...

Natasha,

Some adults are seriously trying to be part of the solution. Hopefully you can open this link.

Then, how do you explain this link of yours and the former claim that we are all racists? They are incompatible.. . One negates the other...

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I might be discussing this in another thread. I drew a parallel between alcoholism and racism. a) Both of them are diseases. b) Both of them can't be cured, just treated. The biggest difference is that not all individuals are alcoholics but I argue that all human beings are infected through acculturation with this disease of the soul.

Adults who run this camp are racists in recovery. The fact that one developed a non-racist outlook on life, doesn't mean that one can't relapse. Again, racism can be treated but not cured. It's always trying to rear its ugly head.

So I stick by my 3 categories of human beings when it comes to racism:

Absolutely not. I might be discussing this in another thread. I drew a parallel between alcoholism and racism. a) Both of them are diseases. b) Both of them can't be cured, just treated. The biggest difference is that not all individuals are alcoholics but I argue that all human beings are infected through acculturation with this disease of the soul.

Adults who run this camp are racists in recovery. The fact that one developed a non-racist outlook on life, doesn't mean that one can't relapse. Again, racism can be treated but not cured. It's always trying to rear its ugly head.

So I stick by my 3 categories of human beings when it comes to racism:

1. Racists in recovery
2. Racists in denial
3. F*cking racists

Click to expand...

Where are the proofs that people who run this camp are "racists in recovery"? Can you prove that they had earlier racistic behavior? I am sure that they would be very offended if they heard how you classify them.. And they would have complete right.

I do not like the way you think. Actually, I find it very tragic and misanthropic one. It is not that I am very phylanthropic, nor I think that a human is a wonderful being (a s a matter of fact, I think it is rather selfish and mean), but for sure I still have some faith in human being left. And hope is what keeps us alive.

(Sorry for bad spelling of misanthropic and phylantropic words. I really do not know how to spell them.)

EDIT: And for sure I am not with you that alcoholism is a born-in desease (if I understood it well).

I argue that all human beings are infected through acculturation with this disease of the soul.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you to the extent that everyone has a bit of "racist" tendancies. I don't necessary call it "racist," however, so much as "differentist." We, as humans, do tend to be more inclined to commune with those we see as "like ourselves." This could be manifested in having friends of the same religion (even from the same church), friends who share like values, friends who attended the same schools, friends who are in the same profession. We're constantly reassigning members of our own personal "cliques," whatever those might be. The fact remains, however, that skin color can play a great role in this a bigger part of the problem.

We have a friend, a black man, Ph.D., college professor, whom we associate with at parties and in a film group we are part of. He teaches English and Literature, mostly AA literature, at an all-black University. He is by far one of the most intelligent and well-spoken individuals I have ever met in my life. His level of vocabulary is intimidating even to me. His current girlfriend is Latina, although he usually prefers dating "non-blacks." So my question is this. Is he, too, "racist," because he socialized primarily with non-blacks, or are we racist for socializing with him?

I once read some matierals about the "7 Levels of Racism" or something to that effect. I tried unsuccessfully to look it up on the web. In short, it was a program sponsored by a privately-funded institution that discussed the many different ways "racism" can manifest itself.

One of the things in particular that stuck out to me is that even "positive" comments can be seen as racist. For example, if I, a white female, were to comment on how I really liked someone's hairstyle (i.e. braids) - because this hairstyle might be seen as "typical" among certain ethnic groups, then this is a racist comment, even though to me it is a compliment. The same could be said if I were to make a comment about someone wearing ethnic garb, which I find particularly attractive.

Even going out of your way to make certain someone of a "minority" was made to feel welcome or included was seen as racist.

Some forms of racism are obvious. Others less so. It is these "less so" incidences that cause so many problems, and I have yet to see anyone willing to step up and examine them in an HONEST manner. They're downright confusing.

Absolutely not. I might be discussing this in another thread. I drew a parallel between alcoholism and racism. a) Both of them are diseases. b) Both of them can't be cured, just treated. The biggest difference is that not all individuals are alcoholics but I argue that all human beings are infected through acculturation with this disease of the soul.

Adults who run this camp are racists in recovery. The fact that one developed a non-racist outlook on life, doesn't mean that one can't relapse. Again, racism can be treated but not cured. It's always trying to rear its ugly head.

So I stick by my 3 categories of human beings when it comes to racism:

1. Racists in recovery
2. Racists in denial
3. F*cking racists

Click to expand...

I deny that I am a fucking racist and I deny that I am a sinner. A careful persual of posts reveals to me that I am not Robinson Crusoe in WR.

I deny that I am a fucking racist and I deny that I am a sinner. A careful persual of posts reveals to me that I am not Robinson Crusoe in WR.

.,,

Click to expand...

Of course you're not.

And besides, what is a definition of a sinner? Which definition we ahould take? Christian? Budhist, hindu, muslim? Please.... Who in this world will judge me if I am a sinner or not? What is a sin at all? Being gay? Being poor? To commit adultery? Or to abort? What? there are aother cultures where these things were and are normal. I think that the word sinner is very anticuated, and ahould be banned from the moder language as to be a word to qualify anyone.

Is it 1) Believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others or 2) Hating mankind in general?

Thank you! (I can live with #1 but it's #2, just lie to me, ok? You already told me that you don't like how I think. There's only so much beating a guy can take)

Click to expand...

So, I have to agree with you in order not to hurt your feelings? Hmm.... I don't think so. I just said what I think, as you said, too. you said that all human beings are racist, and even you gave the division of it. If you think that having this opinion about human race is not misanthropic, then I do not know what to say. Really.
Remembeer that many of what you say offended too many people here, and nobody is saying: Ok, It is abeating that a guy /girl can take.

And yes, I think what you've said about the human beings is a wording of a person who is:
1: believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others [syn: cynical, misanthropic]
2: hating mankind in general [syn: misanthropic]

Sorry if this hurts you. I only say what I mean. Just as you did. And you hurt somebody's feelings, too.